Is it still my fault?

[Hrvatski Noahid]

https://hesedyahu.wordpress.com/2019/08/28/is-it-still-my-fault/

This was inspired by a subreddit post that can be found here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Noachide/comments/cw5k0g/the_divine_code_daily_dose_part_422/

If you’re interested in more info about the divine laws for humanity, you can check out the Noachide Reddit group.

The Divine Code says the following:
Rambam writes in Laws of Kings 10:1 that a Gentile is liable for transgressing a Noahide commandment due to negligence, since he should have learned it. But it seems that Rambam is only referring to a situation in which the general community knows the law this person transgressed, yet he excluded himself and didn’t learn it. If most of the members of the community don’t know this law, one of these individuals is not liable unless he was previously warned, since it was impossible for him to learn it in his situation. Since the laws of G-d are true and just, such a person is not liable under these unavoidable circumstances (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 49-50).

Essentially, it seems to me that Maimonides (Rambam) is teaching that if a community doesn’t know the laws, then individuals in that community that break the law aren’t “liable.”

What does it mean to be liable? I’m gonna look at the way the word is used in the Divine Code, see if I can find a clue.

There are actions for which the individual or the society is liable to be punished, since such behavior is not appropriate for the human race, even though it is beyond the scope of the Seven Commandments. (ibid, Author’s Introduction)

However, if he fulfills the Noahide Code in practice, he is not liable to any punishment for this lack of belief. (ibid, footnote 15, Part I, chapter 1)

Only the deviant believer of category (e) is liable for a capital sin in violation of a Noahide Commandment, since he combines his deviant belief with actually worshiping his intermediary, which he has made into an idol … But one who serves an intermediary is liable, according all opinions. (ibid, footnote 18)

Still, they are not liable to judgment by a court for this transgression, since a court may only punish for actions, but not for thoughts and beliefs. (ibid, Part 1, chapter 1, topic 10)

So right now, I’m none the clearer. I still don’t understand how “liable” is being used and what it means.

After asking wiser heads about this, it was shown to me that “liable” here means punishable, culpable, guilty or blameworthy. If I were to translate the term into simple English, I’ll give an example of what I’d do.

Original version: Only the deviant believer of category (e) is liable for a capital sin in violation of a Noahide Commandment, …

My translation: Only the deviant believer of category (e) is guilty and can get the death penalty in a righteous court for violating a Noahide Commandment …

That is clearer to me.

So at least when I see “liable” with regards to the seven laws, I’ll know to see it as “is punishable” or “is guilty and can get this punishment.” Context will tell me if the people punishing is a righteous court or God. I note that my understanding of liability is this: to be guilty and can be punished. It’s not simply being guilty on its own. Hope I remember.

So the Daily Dose above, the Divine Code, teaches that without a Torah-knowledgeable community, or even a morality-honouring community, individuals in that community is not liable. That means to me that should such a person do a forbidden act and another community who knows the seven laws should exist, then the righteous community cannot drag the foreign violator from his own community, place him on trial and convict and execute him.

A question comes to mind. I’ve repeatedly quoted the Talmud when it says, “seven commandments were enjoined upon Gentiles.” So all Gentiles still have this obligation, to live lives that avoid what has been forbidden by God. But if a person is not “liable,” or more clearly “punishable”, does that mean the obligation has gone?

Finally and most basically, we must consider the conditions under which the Bnei Noah legislation is applicable for it not only dictates a personal code of conduct – it also defines a legal status. The Bnei Noah prohibitions may be observed as a personal code of conduct, but the legislation is incomplete without the institution of Courts. This requires a government that implements the legal status of Bnei Noah. To say, it has no application until the establishment of a government that rules by the Torah Law which dictates these commandments. (pg 26, chapter 2 of Torah for Gentiles, by Elisheva Barre)

The liability was suspended, but the commandments are not abrogated for lack of application. They remain incumbent upon every man because they are an inherent part of Man’s constitution. (pg 29, chapter 3 of Torah for Gentiles, by Elisheva Barre)

In teaching the laws by which one is liable for the death penalty, we are teaching a religious ideal; we are not suggesting that non-Jews carry out Noahide justice today against the law of their local governments. (the chapter called “Noahide Justice In Proper Perspective: Answering the Fear-Mongers and Anti-Semites”, in Part I of Guide for the Noahide by rabbi Michael Shelomoh bar-Ron)

We now see that, unlike Israel’s Covenant at Sinai, the Noahide Covenant [the seven laws -DD] is not a religion that one must convert to, a people one must be accepted into. It is the Divinely-ordained legal, social, moral, and spiritual framework that non-Jewish human beings are born into — just as we are all born into a natural framework of physical laws and limitations. (the chapter, “A Torah Tradition and a Birthright; Not a Religion”, in Part I of Guide for the Noahide by rabbi Michael Shelomoh bar-Ron)

So what do these resources highlight?

They highlight the fact of life that we are not in the place to make liability actual, to make capital punishment an actual legal consequence for breaking the laws. But just because part of the seven laws system is out of reach, that does not mean it all goes away, that there is no more obligation. As rabbi bar-Ron stated, it is a framework, including a moral one, that we Gentiles are born into.

So if, in our current world, idolatry or injustice is rife and protected by human law, if murder is approved of and theft is routine, just because the seven laws liability is gone, it doesn’t mean the seven laws morality is gone as well. In fact, its divine origin guarantees its superhuman longevity. Injustice is wrong even if the liability that comes with it can’t be effected. Idolatry and cursing God’s name are still wrong, even if society protects them.

So all of this is to say, the universal morality of the seven laws still stand even if the capital punishment that accompanies them can’t be done. In fact, the liability still teaches how important they are.